ASPECTS OF CIVIL ADMINISTRATION AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN
NINETEENTH CENTURY KNOTTINGLEY
By TERRY SPENCER B.A. (HONS), Ph D.
Preliminary Draft May 2005
CHAPTER FIVE
CLAIMANTS & PAYMENTS
A
pauper seeking relief at a parish other than that to which he belonged was
closely examined as to his parish of origin and was expected to produce a
certificate of settlement showing that the ‘native’ parish was
responsible for the cost of any relief granted.
Despite
the fact that Knottingley as an important river port experienced a greater
degree of socio-economic mobility than that of most inland townships,
there are indications that applications for relief were dealt with in a
somewhat casual way. The emphasis seems to have been on an oral
examination with the outcome decided at the discretion of the Overseer.
There
is evidence that the Select Vestry attempted to regularise the application
procedure for in October 1841 it was resolved, "...that every
application for Relief be taken down in writing and the Relieving Officer
be ordered to go round the Town and produce in writing before the Board an
exact account of the circumstances of parties and relief given in each
case accordingly." (1)
Thereafter
there are references to several applicants "having a form sent"
in order that the Select Vestry Committee had a formal record of every
applicant’s circumstances, although given the high level of illiteracy
amongst the poor in that era one wonders about the utility of such a
procedure. (2) The recourse to bureaucracy was an inevitable consequence
of a whole series of developments from the closing decade of the
eighteenth century. Contemporaneously with population growth was an
increase in food prices from 1795 due to the effect of the Napoleonic
Wars. Simultaneously, the rise of industrialisation and the application of
mechanisation to agriculture and the erosion of domestic industry resulted
in a fall in the provision of board and lodging as a staple rural of
employment. (3) In addition, the widespread enclosure of common land
robbed the poor of subsistence rights based upon customary observance from
feudal times. (4) The combined effect was to create a mass of independent
workers seeking hire for day wages in lessez faire conditions. The
situation was further exacerbated with the conclusion of the Continental
war which increased the number of unemployed as soldiers were discharged
into the labour market, pushing down wages below subsistence level. In
addition, these developments coincided with a period of good seasons and
bountiful harvests reducing prices and wages. (5)
The
removal of elements of economic stability from the poorer labourers
naturally increased the number of applicants for poor relief. (6) Such was
particularly the case at Knottingley where occupations based upon maritime
activity, limestone excavation and agriculture, were subject to the
effects of climatic conditions causing temporary as well as long term
unemployment. In addition the 1795 amendments to the Act of Settlement, by
producing a greater social mobility, were a factor in the increase in the
number of residents at Knottingley thereby creating greater demand for
Poor Law relief, particularly at times of cyclical depression.
The
Poor Law Act of 1834 with its centralised supervision and bureaucratic
administration was doubtless a factor which influenced the process of
regularisation at Knottingley and by 1841 standardised forms had been
introduced. Summoning claimants before the Vestry for case reviews had
become increasingly common (7) with the threat of parish relief being
stopped to enforce compliance. (8) An example of coercion by the Committee
is shown by the decision of April 1852 that,
"Widow
Travis’ pay be suspended until she give up letters from her son."
(9)
The
Select Vestry met at 10.00am each Tuesday and sat for one hour to hear
applicants, no application being considered after 11 o’clock. (10)
Furthermore, applicants had to attend personally for it was specified,
"That
if a man’s wife attend the Vestry for relief she shall not be attended
to except her husband come himself for it", (11) though whether
the decision was to crush hubris or prevent moonlighting is uncertain.
Following
an application the relieving officer was despatched to the residence of
the claimant in order to examine the domestic environment and ascertain
the circumstances and degree of an applicant’s poverty. Hence,
"Betty
Colley be visited by the Overseers", and again,
"The
Overseers visit William Howram’s wife in the Buck [Inn] Yard."
(12)
The
nature and extent of any relief recommended was calculated somewhat
subjectively by the Overseers and usually approved unquestioningly by the
Vestrymen.
"Joseph
Wright’s case be inquired into by Mr. Smith with reference to what
relief he ought to have – aged 79 years." (13)
The
basis of eligibility and degree of need was largely based upon the
Overseers’ personal knowledge of claimants and served adequately as far
as the local inhabitants of a small parish were concerned. A more diverse
element was to be found at Knottingley, however, in the form of transient
labourers drawn to the town from widely dispersed locations and equally,
natives of the township ‘exiled’ in alien parishes through involvement
with the maritime trade.
Under
the terms of the 1662 Act of Settlement newcomers to any parish were
afforded the theoretical right of settlement and by implication, poor
relief. A further act of 1697 enabled parish officers to issue a
certificate which confirmed that a named family desirous of moving to a
new location was recognised as being a legal charge on the ‘home’
parish in the event of becoming recipients of poor relief, which would
reimburse money expended upon a migrant family by an ‘adoptive’
parish.
By
the advent of the nineteenth century the basis of settlement in a new
parish was birth, marriage or apprenticeship (and later, inheritance). In
theory, newcomers enjoyed 40 days of unchallenged residence in their new
settlement before any challenge was raised to their right of residence. In
practice the right of settlement was usually challenged within the 40 day
period by parish officers anxious to minimise any potential claimants for
parish relief. A challenge by overseers within the 40 day qualifying
period had to be presented for the approval of the local justices. The ‘incomers’
were then required to show that they were possessed of property with an
annual rental value of £10 or face the prospect of repatriation to their
home parish. As the average rental value of a cottage in the early
nineteenth century was about 50 shillings a year, most newcomers were
candidates for removal. (14)
Upon
settlement or receipt of an application for poor relief, overseers began
enquiries concerning the bona fides of the applicant. Thus, in August
1841, we find that,
"Enquiry
be made respecting Thos. Stanhope’s settlement." (15)
Initially,
when documentary proof of settlement right was not immediately available,
an oath was required. Hence, the month following,
"John
Martin be sworn to his settlement." (16)
In
cases in which there was a local connection the oral testimony of a third
party was invoked,
"Henry
Tranmore’s Grandmother respecting his settlement be seen." (17)
When
claimants from more distant parishes were involved it was necessary to
contact the overseers of the parish of origin, usually by letter. In
September 1843, for instance, it was recorded,
"That
the Overseers be written to respecting Ellen Jones of Leeds" (18),
and again, in November 1849, "That the Overseer write Greenwick (sic)
respecting Geo. Thompson." (19)
Where
parish relief was granted to a settler the relieving parish was reimbursed
by the parish of origin.
"Widow
Wainwright of Temple Hirst be paid 4 shillings weekly for the future",
and that
"Widow
Copley of Bradford have 2s per week"
are
typical examples of the Knottingley Vestry acting as surrogate.
Likewise,
"The
order of Leeds Workhouse that Robert Jones have 1s additional for one
month is confirmed." (20)
Similarly,
"The
allowance by Newcastle Upon Tyne to John Masterman, being ill, is
sanctioned by the Board." (21)
In
cases where the removal of a pauper was sought an order for the proposed
removal had to be obtained from the magistrates.
"That
an order of removal be got for the removal of Mary Thorpe to Haddlesey",
and
"That
an order of removal be got for Thomas Greenwood",
are
just two of many such within the Minute Books of Knottingley Select
Vestry. (22)
The
pauper had the right to appeal against the removal order and under the
terms of the 1795 legislation a removal order could be suspended in cases
of illness, a concession extended to the family of sick paupers in 1809.
(23) Substantial delay occurred between application for relief and
eventual removal even in the most uncomplicated cases. In the case of
George Thompson quoted above, some six weeks was expended in ascertaining
the validity of his claim and even when the decision to remove him was
reached several more weeks were required whilst arrangements were made
before the removal took place. (24)
Appeals
against removal were not confined to the individuals concerned. The parish
to which it was proposed to remove them also had right of appeal. In 1844,
Knottingley Select Vestry decided that,
"The
order of Charles Bowles removal be appealed against." (25)
During
the interim period, claimants received temporary relief from the overseers
of the parish of residence who then sought reimbursement from the parish
of origin if the settlement application was rejected. Frequent references
are to be found such as,
"Joseph
Pollard be relieved and removed", and
"Rebecca
Dixon be relieved and her settlement ascertained", and
"Wm
Ayres 4s 6d per week and removed to his settlement." (26)
The
able bodied were set to work. Samuel Nichols was relieved and provided
with work by the Surveyor of Highways in 1842. Subsequently being found
ineligible for relief Nichols was dismissed and within a week the decision
was taken that,
"Samuel
Nichols and family be removed to his settlement." (27)
A
similar case concerns George Wood who having received outdoor relief for
several months was admitted into Knottingley Workhouse on Boxing Day 1861.
Following examination by the Overseers, Wood was promptly expelled,
"...in
consequence of his being in a club [i.e. Friendly Society] at Mexbro’
and in receipt of 8s per week." (28)
The
Select Vestry instruction to the Assistant Overseer, James Miller,
"To
remove Jas. Spacey to Ripon immediately with all necessary documents",
provides
an indication of the speed at which removal, once sanctioned, was
undertaken and also something of the bureaucracy underwriting the action.
(29) A decision that,
"Mark
Jewitt and family [be] removed to Thornton [on Tees?] To be conveyed by
horse and cart"
gives
an insight into one method of removal in the pre railway era. (30)
The
acknowledgement or rejection of paupers became almost a point of honour
and much time and money was spent resisting or enforcing the law of
settlement, even to the extent that the merest suspicion of
disqualification would be checked promptly as in November 1857 when,
"The
Assistant Overseer went over to Leeds and found that Richard Copley had
lived at Holbeck 8 years and had not broken his residence." (31)
In
some cases the antecedents of a claimant proved to be too elusive as in
September 1843,
"The
case of Widow Beckett’s settlement be abandoned",
and
Knottingley was compelled to support her. Beckett was allowed 1 shilling a
week and was eventually admitted into the workhouse. (32) The background
to another case is open to surmise but for whatever reason the Select
Vestry decided in April 1851 that,
"Ann
Howard, wife of William Howard, have no assistance given in finding her
place of settlement." (33)
Once
the legislative process had run its course it still remained for
administrative details to be completed. An 1851 resolution,
"That
the Overseers apply to [an unspecified] Union workhouse to receive Sarah
Rhodes", (34)
indicates
that while the establishment of the Pontefract Union lay some twenty years
in the future, the 1834 Act was already well established elsewhere.
The
record shows that several individuals could be simultaneously awaiting
removal. (35) Once approved the deportation was ruthlessly applied whether
involving individuals, married couples, (36) entire families, (37) widows,
(38) and even individual children. (39)
On
occasion the zeal of parish officers backfired on them. In 1857 the
Overseers stated quite categorically that,
"Robert
Jackson’s settlement is not in Knottingley",
only
to conclude two months later that,
"Robert
Jackson have 2s 6d per week and reside where he pleases." (42)
Knottingley
Overseers were routinely called upon to undertake journeys to examine ‘exiled’
paupers who claimed the township as their parish of origin. In 1842 for
instance, the Select Vestry authorised,
"One
of the Overseers to go to Sheffield, Beverley & Kampsall (sic) [Campsall]
to enquire after the settlement of John Martin, Wm Braithwaite and John
Mason." (41)
In
December, an Overseer was instructed to,
"...go
to Salford to enquire into John Butcher’s case." (42)
From
the late seventeenth century all vestries were instructed to revise poor
relief in order to assess changing circumstances and prevent fraud by
paupers or covetous overseers. (43) To facilitate this practice, it was
necessary for ‘exiled’ paupers to be reassessed, particularly by the
third decade of the nineteenth century when the effects of
industrialisation and legislation wrought rapid changes to the social life
of the population. In November 1845, the Knottingley Select Vestry
resolved that the Overseer,
"See
all the paupers in Hull belonging to Knottingley & bring acct. (sic)
in writing of their circumstances. " (44)
Similarly,
the following month it was decreed,
"That
the paupers at Leeds & Bradford be visited." (45)
Again,
in March 1853, it was resolved,
"That
a letter of enquiry be Sent to every out Township pauper." (46)
An
idea of the potential for abuse of the system is evident from the Vestry
decision of July 1856,
"That
means be used to know if out of Town paupers be living." (47)
The
awareness, gained no doubt from experience, of the likelihood of
fraudulent conduct by some claimants explains the caution of the Select
Vestry in the case of Mary Pulman, referred to previously, when the
Overseers were detailed to accompany her to Liverpool and witness her
departure for America in 1853. Nor was this an isolated incident for the
Overseers were frequently called upon to accompany paupers en route to or
from Knottingley. Thus in 1862,
"John
Smith be sent to fetch William Parker from Selby Union"
(48),
and
on an errand of a different kind, in midwinter 1844,
"…the
Overseers got to Liverpool for James Hodson’s Indentures of
Apprenticeship." (49)
An
example of the system in reverse is seen in the decision in August 1852 to
accept the repatriation of a native pauper,
"Widow
Claybrough be received into the House when the Bradford officers shall
bring her. " (50)
The
introduction of the Penny Post in 1840 and the development of a national
railway network and its accompanying telegraph system from that decade
made the process of checking pauper credentials and removal or
resettlement quicker and easier, providing a welcome element of ease and
comfort for officers travelling on Select Vestry business. (51) An
interesting glimpse of the pre-railway era with particular reference to
Knottingley’s maritime connection is revealed in the decision of March
1842,
"That
Wm Masterman & family be sent to Newcastle by the Knottingley &
Hull Packets." (52)
Regardless
of improved communications, the job of the Overseers was a demanding one
and it is interesting to note that on occasion the non-availability of an
Overseer resulted in the Select Vestry having to delegate a third party to
undertake the examination or journey of a claimant. In August 1840 it was
decided,
"William
Hepworth Esqr. be requested to go to Whitley and Darrington to take
evidence respecting James Mason’s settlement" (53),
while
in 1844,
"Widow
Peel be left to Mr Shaw to settle with the Overseers of Womersley."
(54)
The
system of reciprocal relief seems to have worked well given the
constraints of time, distance and allowing for the degree of illiteracy
amongst a substantial element of paupers. Select Vestry records furnish
numerous instances of mutual regard between officials of different
parishes with requests that examinations of claimants be conducted by
proxy and forwarded to them, (55) that relief be granted to ‘exiled’
parishioners on their behalf, (56) or upgraded in accordance with changed
circumstance. (57) Indeed, in the case of certain parishes in which a
substantial number of Knottingley ‘exiles’ were resident, there
appears to have been a considerable degree of confidence in the relieving
officers to the extent that carte blanch was provided in the appraisal of
each claimant. Viz:
"Mr
Moxon [Hull Overseer] relieve Wm Shaw at discretion." (58)
and
again
"Mr
Moxon relieve Widow Gomersall as he sees fit." (59)
or
expressed in a different way,
"Mr
Moxon to do as he sees needful." (60)
Likewise,
with reference to other Overseers,
"Masterman
to be relieved at Newcastle like their paupers", (61)
and
"Bradford
Overseers relieve Wm Copley as they do their own paupers." (62)
Similarly,
appreciation for co-operation is seen in Knottingley’s acknowledgement,
"That
the Vestry approves of the conduct of the Overseers of Newcastle in taking
Wm Masterman." (63)
and
this is also expressed in the promptness with which bills were paid for
services rendered by other authorities. (64)
Constraints
of space and money and doubts concerning validity did occasionally result
in refusal to co-operate, as in 1841 when,
"The
application from Hensall to receive a pauper of theirs into the workhouse
be refused." (65)
Outright
rejection of paupers nominating the township as their parish of origin
without any means of verification also features.
"Widow
Ward of Carlton near Worksop be not acknowledged" (66)
is
typical of a number of such cases and is shown rather more forcefully in
the instruction that the overseer write to Halifax overseers that,
"The
Vestry are entirely ignorant of a William Walker of Halifax being our
pauper." (67)
Even
more curt was the decision that,
"No
notice be taken of a letter from Monk Bretton." (68)
Not
unnaturally, settlement problems were the most frequent cause of dispute
between parishes and was sometimes the cause of a protracted and
increasingly bitter affair, often resulting in the triumph of fiscal
prudency invoked in the name of dubious honour. A case in 1840-41
concerning Benjamin Hall and his family illustrates the point.
Hall
appears to have been examined by the Knottingley Overseers who concluded
that his parish of settlement was St. John’s, Southwark. The Southwark
authorities declined to accept responsibility for Hall, however, and by
March 1841, Knottingley Select Vestry decided to seek legal advice. (69)
Hall and family were allowed temporary relief whilst a removal order was
procured and later that month the Hall children were removed to Brotherton
where they presumably were born. (70)
Both
the disputant parties were unyielding and in September 1841 Knottingley
Select Vestry decided,
"That
Mr Clough have the case of Benjamin Hall’s settlement for trial at the
next sessions with St. John’s, Southwark." (71)
The
legal outcome is undisclosed but it would appear that Knottingley had the
weaker case for in October 1841, it sought compromise, resolving that
"If
we have all the costs to pay in Benjamin Hall’s case and take him we
will persuit (sic) the case but if they [Southwark] will pay their own
costs we will take the pauper." (72)
Nor
was recourse to legal action uncommon. In June 1842, for instance we find,
"James
Hawksworth’s settlement be tried with Beal at the next Rotherham
Sessions."(73)
The
instruction that the Overseer at Eggborough be sued for non-payment of a
debt incurred by Knottingley in the relief of one of his paupers is
recorded in April 1856 (74) and may have echoed a case some nine years
earlier when it was resolved,
"That
an order be immediately obtained on Ferrybridge for the payment of Isaac
Clegg’s wife." (75)
A
dispute arose with Cridling Stubbs in October 1861, with Knottingley
resolving to take legal action to obtain compensation for the alleged
removal of John Mountier and his family. (76) The details of the case are
incomplete but the record shows that the family were being relieved by
Knottingley the previous month and it would seem that the paupers had been
brought to Knottingley without due legal process by the Cridling Stubbs
Overseer. (77) Perhaps the Overseers’ assumption that the Mountier’s
originated at Knottingley was based upon his knowledge that the family had
received parish relief there at an earlier date, Amelia Mountier and her
children being workhouse inmates at the time of the 1841 Census. Legal
advice was a sin qua non in all doubtful cases as shown by a case in
November 1860
"That
an opinion of Mr Blanshard (sic) having been taken respecting the
settlement of Christopher Mattinson the Select Vestry agree to the order
of removal being served by the Overseers of Beal."
Clearly
legal opinion was the determining factor in the acceptance of Mattinson by
the Knottingley Overseers and the subsequent decision of the Select Vestry
to allow him a payment of 1 shilling per week. (78) The decision in
November 1841
"That
Jeremiah Rhodes be not now removed to his settlement",
may
be an indication of a belated acknowledgement of responsibility by
Knottingley Vestry when faced with a legal threat to counter the proposed
removal of Rhodes. (79) The case may have it origin in the issue of broken
settlement whereby a pauper was deemed to forfeit the right to relief by
the parish of settlement if taking up residence elsewhere. In February
1842, Knottingley sought to evade responsibility to a claim on them
stating that,
"…application
be made to the Overseers of Bishop Wilton on behalf of John Dove who was
relieved by them nine years ago." (80)
The
rouse was evidently unsuccessful for Dove and his family feature as
recipients of parish pay at Knottingley thereafter. (81) However, almost
twenty years later the ploy was still being utilised, for in July 1861 it
is recorded that,
"Mary
Nelson’s pay be stopped as she has broken her settlement by going to
Goole." (82)
Later
the same year the Select Vestry decided that
"James
Pease’s Pay be stopped in consequence of his going to live in Pontefract
Township viz: - Cattle Laith." (83)
Cattle
Laithes (Leys) were grazing lying on the periphery of Knottingley township
and had formed part of the common fields of Knottingley Manor from time
immemorial. The Select Vestry decision was clearly a cynical ploy to
disown responsibility and was successfully resisted by the Pontefract
Overseers and ultimately rescinded by Knottingley Select Vestry.
Disputes
between parishes even transcended the death of a claimant on occasion,
adding further indignity to the victim of a pauper funeral as each parish
disclaimed responsibility for the expense incurred by such a burial.
Knottingley Select Vestry decided in June 1846,
"That
Borrit’s funeral expenses be not allowed to Worsbrough." (84)
The
situation was by no means unique for in August that year it was similarly
decided that,
"The
10s demanded for the funeral of John Hartley be not paid." (85)
The
demand for payment appears to have come from an official but unidentified
source for the same meeting resolved,
"To
enquire if a coroner can compel us to bury a pauper belonging us, not
residing in Township." (86)
The
absence of any further reference to the dispute may be an indication that
Knottingley had to comply with the coroner’s decision that the parish of
settlement had a duty to its paupers even beyond life itself.
The
record indicates a degree of negotiations between parishes concerning the
amount of relief to be paid to out of town paupers. For example, in August
1861, Knottingley Select Vestry decided
"An
offer of 2s 6d be made to the Guardians of Howden in respect of Ann
Whitehouse" (87),
while
on an occasion two decades earlier, the Vestry Clerk was instructed to
"Write
to Malton that Joseph Toole &B Wife wants more and [Knottingley] will
remove them unless they are allowed 5s per week." (88)
The
demand not being met immediately, Knottingley Overseers began preparations
for removal within the month. (89) Likewise, in April 1856, notification
was given that
"If
money [be] not sent from Allerton Bywater & Eggborough immediately,
the pay be stopped" (90),
and
in March of the year following Knottingley Vestry advised the overseers of
South Hindley that Joseph Kitson should have additional relief,
"...or
be take into the workhouse." (91)
©2005 Dr. Terry Spencer
| INDEX |
INTRODUCTION
| CHAPTER ONE | CHAPTER
TWO | CHAPTER THREE | CHAPTER
FOUR |
| CHAPTER FIVE | CHAPTER
SIX | CHAPTER
SEVEN | CHAPTER
EIGHT | CHAPTER NINE
| CHAPTER TEN |
|
